The very, very contentious 50 for Dissent Rule

[picket fence 17,027]

Watch this descend into an absolute farce this weekend. The AFL will be under more pressure than a one legged prawn in a flock of hungry seagulls. Watch this space!

[Ethan Tremblay 30,812]

3 hours ago, rpfc said:

That’s not what I have read/heard. Appealing is different to remonstrating, and remonstrating is demonstrating dissent. 

Umpiring is in an awful state up and down the leagues and something had to be done. 

If the umpire feels threatened by a player raising his arms, whether it’s appealing for a free, contesting a free or in confusion, it’s a free against that player. This is where the rule falls down, it comes down to how an umpire personally felt by the action. What other sport in the world has subjective rules? 

[Kit Walker 225]

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

What other sport in the world has subjective rules? 

Pretty much all of them really:

Cricket - lbw is literally predicting what's going to happen next

Soccer - passive/active offside, whether a foul is careless/reckless/dangerous

Union - good luck trying to work out anything to do with scrums!

Getting rid of all subjectivity is impossible. Just make it clearer what the parameters are, and don't bring cards/sin bins into elite footy...

[rpfc 28,247]

5 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

If the umpire feels threatened by a player raising his arms, whether it’s appealing for a free, contesting a free or in confusion, it’s a free against that player. This is where the rule falls down, it comes down to how an umpire personally felt by the action. What other sport in the world has subjective rules? 

Aren’t they all ‘to be interpreted’?

And, again, appealing is different because they are asking the question, not belittling the decision.

If an umpire pays a free AND a 50 for appealing then I have little doubt it will be pointed out constantly and clarified for your benefit.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,129]

15 hours ago, Macca said:

I'm not arguing against full time umpires

What I am saying is that the grey areas will still be there

So we'd have total professionals trying to make correct decisions in grey areas that are to say the least, contentious

But make them full time as it will help

 I believe the AFL are going to go hard on dissent & abuse and try and stamp it out

So it will remain a big topic especially with the 50m penalty involved

But towards the end of the season, we may not see too many indiscretions ... let's face it, in a lot of cases a 50m penalty leads to a shot on goal

So dispute the umpires decision and it could easily cost your team a goal

So the free kick count per game amounts to about 40-50 per game ... that's about 1 free kick per player, per game

Is it asking too much for a player to keep his emotions in check once per game? (on average)

 

I agree there will always be grey areas but they can be minimised. There are also the farcical situations where the same action could be deemed a free kick either way depending on how the umpire interprets the situation eg player A goes to kick off the ground while player B dives at the ball causing player A to fall. Is it kicking in danger or taking out the legs?

[Macca 16,902]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I agree there will always be grey areas but they can be minimised. There are also the farcical situations where the same action could be deemed a free kick either way depending on how the umpire interprets the situation eg player A goes to kick off the ground while player B dives at the ball causing player A to fall. Is it kicking in danger or taking out the legs?

I came to terms with different umpires interpreting different decisions within the same games long ago.  I reckon every umpire would see the chaotic sport of footy slightly differently from the next (full time umpires could alleviate that issue - somewhat)

But my attitude is that I could let the inconsistencies bother me or go the other way and take the good with the bad.  Decades ago, I went the other way

I am also one of the few people who will (within games) recognise the lucky free kicks that we receive along with the free kicks that the opposition should have received

And if anyone attempted to do what I do (for say a month or so) they might see the game in a whole new light

The game is a chaotic one, with grey areas left, right and centre.  The umpires do the best they can, they aren't biased, they never cheat, they don't hate us and they don't favour any other teams

For decades my philosophy has been that the club needed to build a great list of players ... only then could we win big.  All the rest of it was faith, hope, trust and belief systems (and the blaming of umpires) ... no substance

I based that thinking on watching the best of the best going about their business (year after year) ... we needed to do what those clubs were doing

So that's what we've done (finally)

By the way, the so-called favoured Bulldogs only received 13 free kicks in last year's GF

Why?  Because in my view, they were 2nd to the ball all game and therefore couldn't milk the free kicks.  We monstered them in that area

And their M.O. is to play in front and then milk frees ... they are very good at that aspect (a logical reason as to why they consistently lead the overall free kick count)  But we didn't allow them to do so.  We destroyed them in all areas of the game

A very simple explanation but in my view, the truth

So I don't blame umpires and therefore, I believe we should have the utmost respect for umpires.  They are not the enemy, the other teams are

Thus, I like the new ruling

[daisycutter 29,600]

11 minutes ago, Macca said:

 

Thus, I like the new ruling

seems like local football and umps don't agree with you, macca

Umpires say the AFL’s abuse crackdown is doing more bad than good

There are fears the controversial crackdown on dissent in the AFL’s top flight is opening up community umpires to more abuse.

Brayden May, Daniel Cencic and Chris Cavanagh (Herald Sun)

The AFL’s crackdown on abuse towards umpires is having the opposite effect of its intention according to match officials.

VAFA umpire Brian Clarke, who has over 20 years’ experience, said it’s becoming even harder for umpires to remain as “invisible as possible” in their roles, with the new dissent rules making them a target for crowd abuse.

The crackdown reached boiling point at the top on the weekend when 50m penalties were handed out for players having their “arms out” in response to umpiring decisions.

Clarke said he understood the push to reduce abuse but said the AFL have “yet again, gone too far.”

He said local footballers would soon be calling for 50s when an opposition players “waves their arms around”.

“At a community level, if I umpired the way they do in the AFL, I would be shot so I don’t officiate that way,” he said.

“Our role is to be as invisible as possible and the AFL have not helped us at all with the constant changing of rules.

“Many people work hard during the week – they come down to the footy to not only barrack for their team but also let off a bit of steam.

“In this role I believe we play an important community function.

“It’s great for individual and community mental health to not keep life’s pressures bottled up inside you.

“So if a supporter or player is giving me some feedback during the games, and offering some unsolicited advice, then fair enough.

“None of us – the players, supporters or umpires – are robots.

“We all love footy because of the passion and emotion involved, and long may this continue.

“Where would our game be without it?”

AFL field umpire Darren Goldspink spoke on radio SEN station on Tuesday morning saying there was now “more pressure on umpires”.

In February, the AFL had written to clubs about the need for more respect towards officials.

“In isolation what the AFL has tried to do is fair enough and we all know the reasons why they do that,” Goldspink said.

“To me it seems like it’s had the opposite effect at the moment.”

The veteran of six AFL grand finals said officiating was “bleeding” at community level where some umpires are watching over up to five games a weekend.

“How is that any good for anybody? The guys who are doing five games are old guys like me who aren’t in any physical condition to do five games,” he said.

“What’ll happen, and this might be over the top, but one of them is going to have some sort of serious medical episode on the ground and then we’ll all stand up and say, ‘Oh sh*t that shouldn’t have happened’.

“It just riles me.”

Former AFL umpire Michael Vozzo said the crackdown on abuse at AFL level served to create a safe environment for those at local level.

Vozzo, who umpired 281 AFL matches between 1999-2011, previously held the head of umpiring post at the Eastern league.

“To be honest, I used to laugh a little bit … we were sort of the first crop of umpires that started clamping down on it (abuse) and I remember commentators were saying ‘The umpires need to be a bit bigger than that’ because they (thought) we should accept it and put up with it,” he said.

“They’re doing it to create an environment at local level for umpires to go out and do their job without the threat of abuse. I’ve coached umpires and I’ve seen the abuse where it’s easy for someone to get at an umpire in local football, whereas in the AFL, they’re protected. It’s quite rare at AFL that it hurts an umpire, but we do it to ensure that local level umpires aren’t subjected to it.

“I’ve seen a grown man threaten a 15-year-old umpire … and his mum sitting up in the grandstands crying. If people are going to get all huffy and puffy over umpires trying to clamp down on player abuse, they’ve got to think about that mum that’s put themselves in that position where if it was their child out in the middle of the ground, what would they think when a player’s going up to them, pointing in their face and threatening to bash them after the game?

“I think people would have a bit better understanding if it was their kid.”

[Lord Nev 13,512]

19 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

seems like local football and umps don't agree with you, macca

Really? Out of the 3 (which is hardly a broad scope) who are quoted in the article, one says abuse is part of the game, one says they understand why it's being done then raises the issue of not enough umps, and one completely agrees with what 'Macca' has been saying.

I notice you also left the quote from Brad Scott out of your post: “Seeing 12, 13, 14, 15-year- old boys and girls umpiring and copping abuse on the field from players and supporters alike is not acceptable. What happens at elite level flows through to community level,” he said.

 

[Axis of Bob 11,669]

40 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

seems like local football and umps don't agree with you, macca

Yeah, the article doesn't really support your point. 

It has a single VAFA umpire saying that he shouldn't umpire the way AFL umpires do, which is entirely true. Nor do they umpire at that standard, which applies to standing the mark, deliberate out of bounds, interchange number, among other rules which are interpreted differently at lower levels than AFL.

The other two examples are of AFL umpires, one of whom fully agrees with the rule, and another who agrees with the intent of the rule because of the effects of umpire abuse at lower levels.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Axis of Bob
Edit: Misread the article, which did not imply the VAFA was already implementing the dissent rule.

[daisycutter 29,600]

1 minute ago, Lord Nev said:

Really? Out of the 3 (which is hardly a broad scope) who are quoted in the article, one says abuse is part of the game, one says they understand why it's being done then raises the issue of not enough umps, and one completely agrees with what 'Macca' has been saying.

I notice you also left the quote from Brad Scott out of your post: “Seeing 12, 13, 14, 15-year- old boys and girls umpiring and copping abuse on the field from players and supporters alike is not acceptable. What happens at elite level flows through to community level,” he said.

 

every one is well aware of what brad scott has said. it's everywhere.

besides i left that out and the pics because of demonland's policy of not reproducing media items in full

[daisycutter 29,600]

1 minute ago, Axis of Bob said:

Yeah, the article doesn't really support your point. 

i'd have thought Darren Goldspink's opinion would have been worth consideration 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

i'd have thought Darren Goldspink's opinion would have been worth consideration 

Goldspink said he agreed with the concept of what they're doing but the implementation isn't right yet. That seems to be the crux of a lot of the posts you appear to be arguing against.

[dieter 3,325]

11 hours ago, dieter said:

If I'm correct, the germinal incident which caused this over-reaction regarding players being able to say, Che?, was Tobias Green walking through an umpire. I fail to understand how a question or an arm wave is even remotely related.

That there is a problem recruiting umpires in most forms of Football is an issue related to more than on field player dissent: rather, it is a reflection of how deeply aggressive and troubled our society has become.

The other aspect I've noted is that initially Green was banned for two weeks for walking through an umpire. That was the end of last season. Suddenly, just asking 'what was that for", or raising arms in dismay is a possible game changing 50 meter penalty. 

For the record, I've been watching AFL/VFL football since 1959, played a few games myself for a VFA side - Under Age - and in that time, I've been aware of not very many incidents where an Umpire may or would have felt unsafe or threatened. ( Though I understand this does not apply in certain Leagues throughout the country: which in itself, simply points to much wider sociological issues.) Yes, Green's action was over the top and deserved probably more than the sentence he received. Green, though, is a special case of a young man deluding himself into entitlements he believes he deserves. 

I have also seen some awesome displays of very biased and incompetent umpiring in that time, and I note that not much has changed in that regard.

Perhaps the AFL , instead of bringing one of the greatest examples of shall we say 'unpleasant past AFL characters', to make sanctimonious announcements a la Scott, it ought to make umpiring an attractive and sustainable career, creating a coordinated network, where career umpires begin apprenticeships at every level of football in Australia. It's probably the best way to attract men and women of high caliber. We offer lads in their late teenage years the opportunity to make big bucks as AFL footballers, we ought to - as a professional sport - be offering the same opportunities to umpires.

[Axis of Bob 11,669]

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'd have thought Darren Goldspink's opinion would have been worth consideration 

It is. He is very passionate about the need to improve umpire numbers and thinks that what the AFL is trying to do is fair enough. He also bemoans umpires having to do 5 games a week because there aren't enough umpires. 

There aren't enough umpires. Even the VAFA umpire quoted in the article umpired over 100 games in the season before COVID, and there are fewer umpires now!

[daisycutter 29,600]

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Goldspink said he agreed with the concept of what they're doing but the implementation isn't right yet. That seems to be the crux of a lot of the posts you appear to be arguing against.

oh just go away, nev and learn to read peoples posts properly, you are a real pest at times

i have NEVER said abuse shouldn't be cracked down on.......just where the line drawn is reasonable

[daisycutter 29,600]

Brad Scott fined $30,000 by AFL for accusing umpires of bias, North Melbourne cops $50,000 punishment

Posted Tue 21 Jun 2016 at 4:22pmTuesday 21 Jun 2016 at 4:22pm, updated Tue 21 Jun 2016 at 4:32pm

 

The AFL has fined North Melbourne coach Brad Scott $30,000 for accusing umpires of bias.

In the immediate aftermath of North Melbourne's nine-point loss to Hawthorn, Scott claimed he had been told an on-field umpire made the remark after a crucial non-decision went against the Kangaroos, but an investigation on Saturday morning proved the claims to be false.

The Kangaroos have also been fined $50,000 as a result of the incident.

"The comments by Brad Scott, on behalf of the club in his position as senior coach, were extremely serious in regard to the conduct and professionalism of the umpires and how they officiate all players equally across the competition," AFL general manager of football operations Mark Evans said in a statement.

"It was totally inappropriate for any doubt to be cast over their professionalism in a public environment without having detailed the facts of what had occurred in any player-umpire conversations through the course of the match.

[Macca 16,902]

16 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

seems like local football and umps don't agree with you, macca

You make it look like I'm the only one who has taken up a stance in favour of umpire respect

And the article doesn't really support your view ... did you even read it?  The article actually highlighted how things have got out of hand at suburban & junior level (which most should know about already if we're being honest)

There's been an overreaction which has quickly turned into outrage ... take a chill pill 

Your thinking is antiquated.  Get with the program, dc.  We live in a different world where workplace bullying and respect all round is now recognised. Finally

And to further emphasise that point, we've now got an Australia-wide womens league and that league might be able to lead the way with regards to umpire respect. I hope so, anyway

These people (the umpires) are just trying to do their best in a sport which is impossible to adjudicate correctly.  Why punish them the way we do?  It's so unfair

The answer is don't back-chat, don't remonstrate, get on with it and play your best

And I agree with others that frivolous reactions shouldn't be penalised.  But as previously stated, there will be teething problems.  There always is with new rulings

[sue 9,096]

Still people here assuming disagreement/questioning is the cause of a lack of umpires when the AFL's own review found that even abuse was not the cause, let alone non-abusive arm lifting.     Daisycutter is right - a line has to drawn but in a sensible and consistent place.

Seems to me the AFL would prefer to meddle with the rules (in their usual incompetent way even if you supported the changes) rather than make umpiring well paid and solve the actual problems fo'und in their own review.  

[Jaded No More 68,855]

3 hours ago, rpfc said:

Aren’t they all ‘to be interpreted’?

 

None of the other rules in the game are 'emotional'. That is, all umpires know they need to pay free kicks for in the back, trips, incorrect disposal, head high tackles etc etc. Yes of course it can be interpreted and umpires, like all humans, will make mistakes and see it differently, but overall the rules are quite clear cut.

This rule is dependant on the emotions of an umpire. What I interpret as abuse or dissent, is different to what you would, and can also vary greatly from day to day, depending on what else is happening in our lives. Sometimes we are more sensitive, sometimes we aren't. Similarly an umpire might like a player, have a good relationship with them, and will be happy to get asked a question. Sometimes the umpire would have had a crap day and is sick of everyone and will call a 50 for everything and anything.

This rule is too prone to inconsistency, as seen by the 50 plus actions this week that you could interpret as 'dissent' that went unpunished, and the few that were borderline abusive and did get punished.

What if I put my arms out because I am annoyed at myself or my teammate and an umpire thinks it's to do with them?

As always, the AFL has good intentions, but their execution is horrendously flawed.  

You want to get more umpires into the fold and improve the standard of umpiring, then pay them. You say how important umpires are to our game, and they absolutely are, yet they aren't important enough to employ full time, when the AFL employs people to work on their Instagram full time for goodness sake.
It is clearly not important enough for the AFL, so they try to plaster over the real issues with bandaid solutions which are making it worse.

If umpires were full time professionals who got paid handsomely for playing such a big role in our game, it would significantly improve participation in lower levels, because it is a legitimate career path instead of something you do on weekends only to get a rousing round of boos from fans. 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Jaded No More

[Robbie57 2,020]

Doesn't the dissent rule cover officials as well. So if a coach in the box remonstrates the Ump can award a 50. 

Where is the GIF of Scott in the coaches box when you need it. 

[daisycutter 29,600]

8 minutes ago, Macca said:

You make it look like I'm the only one who has taken up a stance in favour of umpire respect

And the article doesn't really support your view ... did you even read it?  The article actually highlighted how things have got out of hand at suburban & junior level (which most should know about already if we're being honest)

There's been an overreaction which has quickly turned into outrage ... take a chill pill 

Your thinking is antiquated.  Get with the program, dc.  We live in a different world where workplace bullying and respect all round is now recognised. Finally

And to further emphasise that point, we've now got an Australia-wide womens league and that league might be able to lead the way with regards to umpire respect. I hope so, anyway

These people (the umpires) are just trying to do their best in a sport which is impossible to adjudicate correctly.  Why punish them the way we do?  It's so unfair

The answer is don't back-chat, don't remonstrate, get on with it and play your best

And I agree with others that frivolous reactions shouldn't be penalised.  But as previously stated, there will be teething problems.  There always is with new rulings

again macca, you are painting me as saying things i've never said

my beef is and always has been that these new interpretations have gone too far, and to the extent of being damaging to the respect for umpires.

now tell me how that point of view is too hard for you understand, even if you disagree

Edited April 20, 2022 by daisycutter

[Macca 16,902]

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

again macca, you are painting me as saying things i've never said

my beef is and always has been that these new interpretations have gone too far, and to the extent of being damaging to the respect for umpires.

now tell me how that point of view is too hard for you understand, even if you disagree

There's been a few errors with regards to the new interpretation but it hasn't gone too far at all

It's not a perfect world but if we get it mostly right in the end, we succeed.  The end game is what is important here.  The road to that end game is going to be bumpy

I'm not a perfectionist therefore I factor in and allow for a few errors.  I'm not going to be outraged about the umpires when factoring in that we follow a sport that is chaotic and full of grey areas

Cause & effect rather than pointing at the A-end of a problem is my motto

So if we always had more respect for umpires and were prepared to accept the errors that are made, this type of conversation wouldn't exist in the same way 

We might actually be yapping about the actual game

[sue 9,096]

6 minutes ago, Macca said:

.....

We might actually be yapping about the actual game

In a game like ours, even of the AFL tidied up the rules, there will always be contentious umpiring decisions.  So yapping about umpiring will always be part of the actual game (from a spectator point of view).    Sure some will get over emotional or think there is some conspiracy against their team, but there will always be legitimate discussion.

BTW, you aren't the only one who is noble enough to notice free kicks we shouldn't have got or things we got away with.  But I'm sure you know enough about human nature to expect they wouldn't dominate discussion.

[Macca 16,902]

1 hour ago, sue said:

BTW, you aren't the only one who is noble enough to notice free kicks we shouldn't have got or things we got away with. 

Very few talk that way though ... and you are certainly not one of those people

I look forward to your contributions on the game day thread where you can highlight all the frees that the opposition should get and all the lucky frees that we get

Edited April 20, 2022 by Macca

[Macca 16,902]

12 minutes ago, sue said:

In a game like ours, even of the AFL tidied up the rules, there will always be contentious umpiring decisions.  So yapping about umpiring will always be part of the actual game

The amount of umpire discussion is way too much as compared to the actual game or games

The game day threads and the 'Other Games' threads is absolutely dominated by umpire yap (and abuse)

Totally disproportionate to the actual sport that we are witnessing. 

Not nearly enough about the opposition, the way our team is playing or any of the other teams for the matter

Those threads are total whingefest's

If you want to dispute what I'm saying go and have a read of those threads.  And if you think that's ok, we're never going to agree

Umpires don't decide games, talent levels and good coaching does (predominantly)